Countries banning of kosher meats are forcing "expulsion" of Jews

[Shad]

It's convenient that no religion is forcing its beliefs onto you. But it's okay for non-religious fanatics to force their morals onto others.

A point many secularist are blind to. Many do not see the anti-theism members within the various secular groups.

 

[rosends]

Then you failed in finding a substantial difference.

I don't recall looking for what you would consider "substantial." Claiming that I failed by projecting your standards onto me is a losing proposition. I could just as easily redefine "substantial" to invoke some phantom spiritual notion and say that you fail if you don't see what I quantify as counting as substantial. Do you really think that projecting your personal notion of "substantial" is useful?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't recall looking for what you would consider "substantial." Claiming that I failed by projecting your standards onto me is a losing proposition. I could just as easily redefine "substantial" to invoke some phantom spiritual notion and say that you fail if you don't see what I quantify as counting as substantial. Do you really think that projecting your personal notion of "substantial" is useful?

It was clear from the question. Just trying to help you to understand.

And as I have pointed out, projection is your sin.

 

[rosends]

It was clear from the question. Just trying to help you to understand.

And as I have pointed out, projection is your sin.

If you can't see what you project then your blinders are on way too tight. I will explain. You use the word "substantial" and judge me by it. You said "Then you failed in finding a substantial difference" but the word "substantial" only has value when you are measuring according to a particular continuum and standard. For it to make sense to you, you must be using your own standard. Thus, when you tell me I have failed, you are replacing a transcendent and objective standard (if it exists) with your particular use of the word "substantial." When I covered this many years ago, in grad school, we called it "unconscious projection" -- like walking into a room and saying "it is hot in here" when others might not be hot, because you assume that your statement of "I am hot in this room" can be projected onto everyone else. I have seen this also called complementary projection.

After you study a little bit and can substantiate your claims, we can certainly continue to discuss.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you can't see what you project then your blinders are on way too tight. I will explain. You use the word "substantial" and judge me by it. You said "Then you failed in finding a substantial difference" but the word "substantial" only has value when you are measuring according to a particular continuum and standard. For it to make sense to you, you must be using your own standard. Thus, when you tell me I have failed, you are replacing a transcendent and objective standard (if it exists) with your particular use of the word "substantial." When I covered this many years ago, in grad school, we called it "unconscious projection" -- like walking into a room and saying "it is hot in here" when others might not be hot, because you assume that your statement of "I am hot in this room" can be projected onto everyone else. I have seen this also called complementary projection.

After you study a little bit and can substantiate your claims, we can certainly continue to discuss.

Please, once again it you are the one projecting. You could not follow the context of the discussion and gave a weak answer to a question. I tried to make your error obvious to even you, but those blinders are in too tight. Instead you went back to your false attacks on me.

is that because you know that you are supporting an outdated and immoral way of slaughter?

instead of writing pointless responses why not ask for clarification if you cannot understand a question?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Absolutely! Of course, this being a religious debate on a site called religiousforum I don't know why that would be surprising.

Because the issue here is laws, ethics, and the tangible - and avoidable - undue suffering of a livestock animal. Beliefs can change, and when it's something like this where there is a procedure and the death of something, society having an ethical expectation is not an outrageous thing.

You're standing firm for something that by all reason should not matter if it is modernized or not.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

It's convenient that no religion is forcing its beliefs onto you. But it's okay for non-religious fanatics to force their morals onto others.

Actually several are. You're just made of assumptions, aren't you?

 

[rosends]

Please, once again it you are the one projecting. You could not follow the context of the discussion and gave a weak answer to a question. I tried to make your error obvious to even you, but those blinders are in too tight. Instead you went back to your false attacks on me.

is that because you know that you are supporting an outdated and immoral way of slaughter?

instead of writing pointless responses why not ask for clarification if you cannot understand a question?

So clearly, you haven't read anything I wrote or studied the subjects at hand. So be it. I gave definition and example and you evade. That's sad, but clearly, a foolish consistency on your part. When you grow up and can have an adult conversation, come on back and try.

 

[rosends]

Because the issue here is laws, ethics, and the tangible - and avoidable - undue suffering of a livestock animal. Beliefs can change, and when it's something like this where there is a procedure and the death of something, society having an ethical expectation is not an outrageous thing.

You're standing firm for something that by all reason should not matter if it is modernized or not.

You judge this by all your reason and I respect that. I judge it by all my faith. You decide that that doesn't matter and I can't change you. I can simply say that my society is different from yours and our societal expectation and our collective ethics don't correlate to yours. You will decide that they are inferior. I will look at yours and just keep walking.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

You judge this by all your reason and I respect that. I judge it by all my faith. You decide that that doesn't matter and I can't change you. I can simply say that my society is different from yours and our societal expectation and our collective ethics don't correlate to yours. You will decide that they are inferior. I will look at yours and just keep walking.

The word "inferior" was never used, so don't project that onto me. Yet if you, and other Jewish people, are so firm in judging by faith over laws of the land that your practices cannot even slightly bend, don't be surprised when that society revokes tolerance for those practices. It's a poor tactic to cry persecution when there's absolutely no need - faith or no - for the practice to continue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So clearly, you haven't read anything I wrote or studied the subjects at hand. So be it. I gave definition and example and you evade. That's sad, but clearly, a foolish consistency on your part. When you grow up and can have an adult conversation, come on back and try.

This is not true. All you have done is to make false unsupported claims. I have at least posted a video showing that this practice is not humane. Remember, you are not a source. Your definitions are without merit. And you keep trying to shift the burden of proof. A sure sign that one knows that he is wrong. You do so by trying to make it "my" morals when we are discussing the morals of the countries that have banned this practice.


I have seen that you have not been able to justify this ancient practice. Perhaps if you started with that. You need to show that it is just as humane as traditional methods. Find a reliable source, quote and link it.

 

[Cooky]

You judge this by all your reason and I respect that. I judge it by all my faith. You decide that that doesn't matter and I can't change you. I can simply say that my society is different from yours and our societal expectation and our collective ethics don't correlate to yours. You will decide that they are inferior. I will look at yours and just keep walking.

I like that.

 

[rosends]

The word "inferior" was never used, so don't project that onto me. Yet if you, and other Jewish people, are so firm in judging by faith over laws of the land that your practices cannot even slightly bend, don't be surprised when that society revokes tolerance for those practices. It's a poor tactic to cry persecution when there's absolutely no need - faith or no - for the practice to continue.

A) I didn't claim that you said inferior. I anticipated that if I relied on faith vs. your sense of reason you WOULD say that my system is inferior. If you wouldn't then that's great. The you put my system on the same level as yours and I thank you for that. [Edit -- though I have to ask, would you foresee the banning of a practice that is on the same level?]
B) Who said I'm surprised by anything? Why project that onto me?
C) Who cried persecution? Instead of telling me what I do, why not address what I said?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You judge this by all your reason and I respect that. I judge it by all my faith. You decide that that doesn't matter and I can't change you. I can simply say that my society is different from yours and our societal expectation and our collective ethics don't correlate to yours. You will decide that they are inferior. I will look at yours and just keep walking.

With an attitude like this your barbaric practices are likely to be banned by more and more countries. This is the same attitude that defenders of female genital mutilation have.

 

[rosends]

This is not true. All you have done is to make false unsupported claims. I have at least posted a video showing that this practice is not humane. Remember, you are not a source. Your definitions are without merit. And you keep trying to shift the burden of proof. A sure sign that one knows that he is wrong. You do so by trying to make it "my" morals when we are discussing the morals of the countries that have banned this practice.

A video? Something irrelevant to the particular discussion on this branch of the thread. I gave you a definition of a concept and you ignore it, a sure sign that someone is lost.

I have seen that you have not been able to justify this ancient practice. Perhaps if you started with that. You need to show that it is just as humane as traditional methods. Find a reliable source, quote and link it.

I haven't tried to justify the practice, nor have I claimed it is just as "humane" as you say other practices are. You are trying to argue with a position I haven't addressed while ignoring what I have said. That's sad.

 

[Cooky]

The word "inferior" was never used, so don't project that onto me. Yet if you, and other Jewish people, are so firm in judging by faith over laws of the land that your practices cannot even slightly bend, don't be surprised when that society revokes tolerance for those practices. It's a poor tactic to cry persecution when there's absolutely no need - faith or no - for the practice to continue.

This morality that you embrace, that suggests slaughtering an animal has to be done a certain way to be right, may not be as obvious to many as it seems to be to you.

..At least most people wouldnt find it worth passing laws over.

 

[rosends]

With an attitude like this your barbaric practices are likely to be banned by more and more countries. This is the same attitude that defenders of female genital mutilation have.

I can certainly see how you would reach that conclusion. When one is against practices that are backed by simple faith, one can certainly argue their uselessness when placed under the lens of a contemporary scientific system.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A video? Something irrelevant to the particular discussion on this branch of the thread. I gave you a definition of a concept and you ignore it, a sure sign that someone is lost.


I haven't tried to justify the practice, nor have I claimed it is just as "humane" as you say other practices are. You are trying to argue with a position I haven't addressed while ignoring what I have said. That's sad.

A video is visual evidence. Far more than you have done. And your misapplied definitions were only used as a personal attack to detract from the discussion at hand.

if you can't justify the practice then you really should not complain when it is banned.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can certainly see how you would reach that conclusion. When one is against practices that are backed by simple faith, one can certainly argue their uselessness when placed under the lens of a contemporary scientific system.

Sadly you do not know what faith is. It is not an asset. One uses "faith" only when one has no valid reason, evidence, or even logic for one's beliefs.

 

[rosends]

A video is visual evidence. Far more than you have done.

So I haven't produced evidence of a position I have not stated? I can't imagine why...

And your misapplied definitions were only used as a personal attack to detract from the discussion at hand.

Actually there was nothing personal about it. I simply pointed out how the use of a value laden word without establishing a common value system required the imputation of a unilaterally decided value system Sorry you can't follow that.

if you can't justify the practice then you really should not complain when it is banned.

And where exactly did I do that?